Sacrament shooting

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, but typically there aren't as many police there. It does happen as some of the stories I linked to above suggest. So I'm not saying they don't happen. Again look at that list of shootings from Police Magazine. I suspect the number would be higher if more police stations were open like the ones you mentioned rather than how say both Provo and Orem have theirs. Even a lot of the shootings from that list are people shooting from the parking lot at the building simply due to the security of design.

And I suspect that at least part of the reason they shoot from the parking lot instead of going inside is the likelihood they will encounter armed resistance that thwarts their murderous intent, as it did in the Texas incident jkwilliams cited. 

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I suspect that at least part of the reason they shoot from the parking lot instead of going inside is the likelihood they will encounter armed resistance that thwarts their murderous intent, as it did in the Texas incident jkwilliams cited. 

Also tends to thwart their murderous intent when shooting from the parking lot. Let's be honest. These shooters aren't stable and typically not exactly sophisticated or smart. But yes, if the shooter isn't seeking suicide by cop or somewhat inchoate rage at police then attacking a police station doesn't make a lot of sense. So you see attacks on schools and more recently malls more.

Edited July 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Also tends to thwart their murderous intent when shooting from the parking lot. Let's be honest. These shooters aren't stable and typically not exactly sophisticated or smart.

Shooting from the parking lot, they have a better chance of self protection and getting away (and thereby succeeding in their objective) than if they go inside. 

As I’ve said, deranged though they may be, they are not necessarily stupid with regard to tactics and strategy, which is the reason some do succeed to an extent. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree about being part of the western/republican culture.

However, I think you are overstating the comparison between guns and alcohol/free speech. IMO there should be safety restrictions on all of those things, but guns are literally an instrument designed to cause death. The others may result in that but it's not their design.

I confess this line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Surely what matters is the consequences not the design. Further I don't think even most firearm companies with quasi-military advertising plan on their guns killing people. The main use of guns is to fire at targets and secondarily at animals.

Alcohol simply affects many more people than guns do, but we should treat it differently because domestic violence wasn't the intent? 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You once hoped that God would intervene to protect blessed spaces, but this event proves he doesn’t? How could you know that God has intervened nowhere at no time? 

Good question...and I cannot know.  That is why I asked  I am sure there are reasons for intervention and non intervention that I do not understand.  I accept that.  I was just hoping one of you could say that those dedications to graves are an assurety of sorts that hold such dedications meaningful in buildings..worship places...and our loved ones.  I understand better now.  Thank you...but I don't know. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As far as I can tell, “active shooter situations” don’t occur at gun shows or in police stations. 

The deranged killers don’t expect to survive themselves — suicide by cop, as it were — but their goal is to take out as many victims as they can before they get stopped. It goes without saying that’s easier in a “gun-free” zone. 

Well then, won't you have the problem that if you want to avoid higher count mass shootings, that you will basically have to arm and train everyone to be able to respond like cops?  As if schools, etc. get loaded up with guns, those who want to take out as many as they can will simply find other venues with those who are vulnerable and least likely to be carrying guns.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

 

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Personally, I don't see it as a Mormon fascination with guns as much as I see it as a national cultural fascination with guns, yet Utah's (obviously very Mormon) ranks last in gun protection measures.

 

How do they rank in other ways in terms of government involvement in property rights?  Perhaps it isn't relative to gun ownership so much as government where less is automatically seen as better in almost every area.

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well then, won't you have the problem that if you want to avoid higher count mass shootings, that you will basically have to arm and train everyone to be able to respond like cops?  As if schools, etc. get loaded up with guns, those who want to take out as many as they can will simply find other venues with those who are vulnerable and least likely to be carrying guns.

A concealed-carry permit entails mandatory training. And I’m not certain a typical perp would know off hand which schools have trained gun owners on staff and which don’t. An expanding number of trained teachers/staff on hand will make the perps less sure of themselves. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A concealed-carry permit entails mandatory training. And I’m not certain a typical perp would know off hand which schools have trained gun owners on staff and which don’t. An expanding number of trained teachers/staff on hand will make the perps less sure of themselves. 

Again that doesn't address what happens when perps shift from schools to parks and day care centers or doctor offices.

[Amulek]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Again that doesn't address what happens when perps shift from schools to parks and day care centers or doctor offices.

I'm cool with my doctor (or nurse practitioner) packing heat.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm cool with my doctor (or nurse practitioner) packing heat.

 

And my child’s/grandchild’s daycare provider, for that matter, or the parks-and-rec superintendent. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Well then, won't you have the problem that if you want to avoid higher count mass shootings, that you will basically have to arm and train everyone to be able to respond like cops?  As if schools, etc. get loaded up with guns, those who want to take out as many as they can will simply find other venues with those who are vulnerable and least likely to be carrying guns.

Well if they do, at least it will no longer be school kids as the sitting ducks. Having been in a real school lockdown for several hours with over 50 kids hiding in various closets and practice rooms, I can say I would have felt a tad more secure if I had been armed with something other than a snaredrum stand.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm cool with my doctor (or nurse practitioner) packing heat.

 

And then it will shift to restaurants or other easy targets.

Seems like it would be more effective to try and figure out why it happens and how to stop it before any shooting occurs.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

And then it will shift to restaurants or other easy targets.

Seems like it would be more effective to try and figure out why it happens and how to stop it before any shooting occurs.

Well, restaurants aren't necessarily easy targets because you never know who might be carrying (see, e.g., here), but I understand what you are saying.

And I agree that we should try to determine how to stop shootings before they occur. I just believe that pursuing that goal and working to secure more places aren't mutually exclusive ends. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

 

How do they rank in other ways in terms of government involvement in property rights?  Perhaps it isn't relative to gun ownership so much as government where less is automatically seen as better in almost every area.

That's true, but that would take an extensive study to compare. But there are many western states with strong independent leanings. I'd be surprised if Utah's last place gun control ranking would carry over to all other areas like property rights. Most western states (not counting the coast) are anti-government intrusion but Utah has the least (according to the article). I found that surprising.

[jkwilliams]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

And then it will shift to restaurants or other easy targets.

Seems like it would be more effective to try and figure out why it happens and how to stop it before any shooting occurs.

The suggestion seems to be that the more people who are armed, the less likely it is these shootings will occur. I can't wrap my brain around that logic.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The suggestion seems to be that the more people who are armed, the less likely it is these shootings will occur. I can't wrap my brain around that logic.

M.A.D. as a deterrent for any potential attacker. But that only works if people are reasonable.

Mutually Assured Destruction has it's limitations with bad actors eager to make a name for themselves and who don't care if they get taken out. Give everyone guns so no one will use them. But I don't think we want to give Iran and every world dictator nukes with the idea that "if everyone has one, no one will use it". I just don't think that holds up for irrational parties.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

M.A.D. as a deterrent for any potential attacker. But that only works if people are reasonable.

Mutually Assured Destruction has it's limitations with bad actors eager to make a name for themselves and who don't care if they get taken out. Give everyone guns so no one will use them. But I don't think we want to give Iran and every world dictator nukes with the idea that "if everyone has one, no one will use it". I just don't think that holds up for irrational parties.

I say arm the children.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The suggestion seems to be that the more people who are armed, the less likely it is these shootings will occur. I can't wrap my brain around that logic.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that arming more people will make mass shootings go away. I mean, having more police doesn't guaranty that crime goes away, right, though it can be a deterrent for some people who are considering committing a crime.

I think the rationale behind having "more people who are armed" is that it makes it more likely that, when a shooting does take place, there is someone present who has the ability to respond in force. And the sooner you are able to confront an assailant with lethal force, the sooner you can stop them from causing more deaths.  

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that arming more people will make mass shootings go away. I mean, having more police doesn't guaranty that crime goes away, right, though it can be a deterrent for some people who are considering committing a crime.

I think the rationale behind having "more people who are armed" is that it makes it more likely that, when a shooting does take place, there is someone present who has the ability to respond in force. And the sooner you are able to confront an assailant with lethal force, the sooner you can stop them from causing more deaths.  

Earlier in the thread, the suggestion was made that mass shooters avoid areas where there are likely to be armed people, suggesting that the possible presence of guns can be a deterrent. That's what I was responding to. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Earlier in the thread, the suggestion was made that mass shooters avoid areas where there are likely to be armed people, suggesting that the possible presence of guns can be a deterrent. That's what I was responding to. 

Both are desirable: deterrence and defensive capability. Having a greater number of law-abiding citizens who are armed can promote both goals, in my view.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Earlier in the thread, the suggestion was made that mass shooters avoid areas where there are likely to be armed people, suggesting that the possible presence of guns can be a deterrent. That's what I was responding to. 

A deterrent to them happening "at all" or a deterrent to them happening "in a particular location?" 

I mean, it does seem to be the case that the most deadly mass shootings tend to take place in venues where guns are not permitted (e.g., schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, restaurants, etc.) rather than in locations where the probability of encountering a armed resistance is much higher (e.g., shooting ranges, gun stores, donut shops, etc.). Okay, maybe that last one is just a joke, but you get the idea. 

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

A deterrent to them happening "at all" or a deterrent to them happening "in a particular location?" 

I mean, it does seem to be the case that the most deadly mass shootings tend to take place in venues where guns are not permitted (e.g., schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, restaurants, etc.) rather than in locations where the probability of encountering a armed resistance is much higher (e.g., shooting ranges, gun stores, donut shops, etc.). Okay, maybe that last one is just a joke, but you get the idea. 

The logic seems to be that if it's a deterrent in one place, it will be a deterrent in other places. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

A deterrent to them happening "at all" or a deterrent to them happening "in a particular location?" 

I mean, it does seem to be the case that the most deadly mass shootings tend to take place in venues where guns are not permitted (e.g., schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, restaurants, etc.) rather than in locations where the probability of encountering a armed resistance is much higher (e.g., shooting ranges, gun stores, donut shops, etc.). Okay, maybe that last one is just a joke, but you get the idea. 

 

I admit you had me going for a split second with the donut shop joke.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

The logic seems to be that if it's a deterrent in one place, it will be a deterrent in other places. 

I don't see that anybody has been claiming that.